Author
Topic: Drew_2017 (Read 11883 times)

On moral claims ... I claim that humans are amoral. We virtue signal all the time however. But we are lying to ourselves and each other. Nature is amoral, humans are natural, therefore humans are amoral. Doesn't matter if you are religious or not. And it isn't true that classical theism is necessary for moral claims ... G-d told me to do it/not do it ... those kinds of claims are bogus. G-d never told anyone, anything ... because G-d is amoral. You either see reality as a whole as personal or impersonal. Theists see it as personal, atheists see it as impersonal. Both positions are bias. The idea that there is an objective reality, is a Platonic assumption, that simply isn't true. Each person has their own subjective reality, and these overlap, making interaction and communication possible. Meaning comes from what each person does, not externally.

No that is not belief, belief generally occurs due to facts. If an employee of mine shows up on time for work every time I can observe her I have reason to believe she shows up on time when I'm not there. You see how the facts leads to the belief?

What I see is how you use facts and beliefs in the wrong way.

This is a belief:

noun1.something believed; an opinion or conviction:a belief that the earth is flat.2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:a statement unworthy of belief.3.confidence; faith; trust:a child's belief in his parents.4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:the Christian belief.

This is a fact:noun1.something that actually exists; reality; truth:Your fears have no basis in fact.2.something known to exist or to have happened:Space travel is now a fact.

So, since I have seen that the sun comes up every day of my life, I think (not believe, for my thinking is based on prior facts) the sun will come up tomorrow. If it doesn't, then I will change my thinking. Since my employee has not been late for an entire year, I think she will not be late tomorrow; I don't believe she will, since I have facts to back up my thinking.

I believe the Yankees will win the world series next year. I have facts that suggest they win the world series more than any other team. But I don't 'think' they will win this year for there are no facts yet that they have the best team or the luckiest team, so I believe they will because I chose to.

A belief does not have to have any facts whatsoever to be believed. A fact has to have some basis in truth and it is demonstrable as being a fact. I don't believe 2+ 2=4, I know it equals 4, for I can demonstrate that that is a fact. Some facts may be involved in a belief, but that is not necessary. I can believe the earth is flat--don't need any facts to back that up--and I can then have faith in my beliefs. A theist can believe jesus of the bible existed, and they can be totally sincere and have the most faith of any human ever--but there is not one fact that would support that belief and faith. But that does not stop the theist from having those beliefs and faith; facts not needed.

No that is not belief, belief generally occurs due to facts. If an employee of mine shows up on time for work every time I can observe her I have reason to believe she shows up on time when I'm not there. You see how the facts leads to the belief?

Not only do I believe they're facts that support theistic belief, I claim there is a preponderance of evidence that leads to that conclusion.

1. The fact the universe exists2. The fact life exists3. The fact intelligent life exists4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research and the laws of logic deduction and induction and is also explicable in mathematical terms.5. The fact there are several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range that not only allow life as we know it, but also allow the existence of planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.6. The fact that sentient beings cause virtual universes to exist which in effect is a working model of theism.

If none of these facts were true your claim there is no evidence in favor of theism would actually be true.

The problem with this position as I see it is god isn't the only possible answer. Naturalism is a possibility too. One you've rejected despite the fact that every answer we have ever figured out with any degree of certainty has been naturalistic in nature.

You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login“There are priests who carry out exorcisms on their mobile phones. That’s possible thanks to Jesus”Cardinal Ernest Simoni “Life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom”Arthur Schopenhauer

On moral claims ... I claim that humans are amoral. We virtue signal all the time however. But we are lying to ourselves and each other. Nature is amoral, humans are natural, therefore humans are amoral. Doesn't matter if you are religious or not. And it isn't true that classical theism is necessary for moral claims ... G-d told me to do it/not do it ... those kinds of claims are bogus. G-d never told anyone, anything ... because G-d is amoral. You either see reality as a whole as personal or impersonal. Theists see it as personal, atheists see it as impersonal. Both positions are bias. The idea that there is an objective reality, is a Platonic assumption, that simply isn't true. Each person has their own subjective reality, and these overlap, making interaction and communication possible. Meaning comes from what each person does, not externally.

God needn't say anything to anyone. If theism is true and the universe was created for the benefit of humans, it elevates humans above the universe itself. Other wise humans are merely the unintended by product of the laws of physics. Theism provides a philosophical platform to infer the uniqueness and special status of humans as having been intentionally created. In the declaration of independence we read.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The author understood that unalienable rights could only come from a Creator.

God needn't say anything to anyone. If theism is true and the universe was created for the benefit of humans, it elevates humans above the universe itself. Other wise humans are merely the unintended by product of the laws of physics. Theism provides a philosophical platform to infer the uniqueness and special status of humans as having been intentionally created. In the declaration of independence we read.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The author understood that unalienable rights could only come from a Creator.

The problem with this position as I see it is god isn't the only possible answer. Naturalism is a possibility too. One you've rejected despite the fact that every answer we have ever figured out with any degree of certainty has been naturalistic in nature.

I don't reject naturalism as a possibility in fact if theism isn't true, its second runner up.

noun1.something believed; an opinion or conviction:a belief that the earth is flat.2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof:a statement unworthy of belief.3.confidence; faith; trust:a child's belief in his parents.4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith:the Christian belief.

This is a fact:noun1.something that actually exists; reality; truth:Your fears have no basis in fact.2.something known to exist or to have happened:Space travel is now a fact.

So, since I have seen that the sun comes up every day of my life, I think (not believe, for my thinking is based on prior facts) the sun will come up tomorrow. If it doesn't, then I will change my thinking. Since my employee has not been late for an entire year, I think she will not be late tomorrow; I don't believe she will, since I have facts to back up my thinking.

I believe the Yankees will win the world series next year. I have facts that suggest they win the world series more than any other team. But I don't 'think' they will win this year for there are no facts yet that they have the best team or the luckiest team, so I believe they will because I chose to.

A belief does not have to have any facts whatsoever to be believed. A fact has to have some basis in truth and it is demonstrable as being a fact. I don't believe 2+ 2=4, I know it equals 4, for I can demonstrate that that is a fact. Some facts may be involved in a belief, but that is not necessary. I can believe the earth is flat--don't need any facts to back that up--and I can then have faith in my beliefs. A theist can believe jesus of the bible existed, and they can be totally sincere and have the most faith of any human ever--but there is not one fact that would support that belief and faith. But that does not stop the theist from having those beliefs and faith; facts not needed.

Even the dictionary definition of belief contradicts your re-definition...

be·liefbəˈlēf/nounnoun: belief; plural noun: beliefs

1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. "his belief in the value of hard work" something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction. "contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language" synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion "it's my belief that age is irrelevant" a religious conviction. "Christian beliefs" synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More doctrine, teaching, dogma, article of faith, creed, credo "traditional beliefs" 2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something. "a belief in democratic politics"

Its true someone can believe in something for no rational reason minus any evidence such a position is true. That doesn't dictate how belief works or that it always is blind belief.

So, since I have seen that the sun comes up every day of my life, I think (not believe, for my thinking is based on prior facts) the sun will come up tomorrow. If it doesn't, then I will change my thinking. Since my employee has not been late for an entire year, I think she will not be late tomorrow; I don't believe she will, since I have facts to back up my thinking.

You make my case for me. You think the sun will rise because you believe it will rise. Prior to it rising you don't have a fact it will rise only a belief. Your belief becomes fact once the sun rises.

Theism provides a philosophical platform to infer the uniqueness and special status of humans as having been intentionally created. [. . .]The author understood that unalienable rights could only come from a Creator.

So now, your caveat that "God needn't say anything to anyone" notwithstanding, you have clearly moved passed god merely creating the laws of the universe and have him purposefully creating humans and giving them rights; compared to that leap it is a small step indeed to go all in and have him hand write the ten commandment for Moses or send Gabriel to dictate the Quran to Mohamed

Welcome.What do you mean by "personal" Exactly how far can these characteristics vary, both inside and outside the range necessary for . . . ?Why does it need to be "life as we know it"? Would some unknown form of life throw a wrench into everything? Suppose there is a universe containing only a Personal Intelligent Agent [here after PIA] capable of creating a universe with stable, intelligible laws allowing for the formation of planets, stars and life (as we know it)--a situation which, I submit, must have existed prior to any such PIA being able to create the present universe. What should we infer from the existence of that PIA?

Could the PIA create a universe with "several characteristics of the universe that fall within an extremely narrow range" to disallow "life as we know it" and/or "planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies"? Could PIA create a universe without knowable, uniform, predictable laws of nature? Could PIA have not created any universe at all? If "no", why not? If "yes" then how would the existence of our actual universe be evidence of PIA as opposed to any universe supposed by you or I?

Using the same line of reasoning that lead you to conclude that a PIA is necessary to explain the existence of the universe and life, what is necessary to explain the existence of PIA?

I didn't state that any variation can occur. If you want a better idea how narrow the range is check Martin Rees 'Just Six Numbers"

Quote

Why does it need to be "life as we know it"?

Because life as we know it is the only life we know of.

Quote

Suppose there is a universe containing only a Personal Intelligent Agent [here after PIA] capable of creating a universe with stable, intelligible laws allowing for the formation of planets, stars and life (as we know it)--a situation which, I submit, must have existed prior to any such PIA being able to create the present universe. What should we infer from the existence of that PIA?

I have no idea how God came about, I'm not attempting to answer that question. I'm more interested in how intelligent life and the conditions that allowed intelligent life to come about arose.

Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.Albert Einstein

So now, your caveat that "God needn't say anything to anyone" notwithstanding, you have clearly moved passed god merely creating the laws of the universe and have him purposefully creating humans and giving them rights; compared to that leap it is a small step indeed to go all in and have him hand write the ten commandment for Moses or send Gabriel to dictate the Quran to Mohamed

Its not a caveat. If we owe our existence to a creator who intentionally caused the universe for sentient beings to live (not necessarily just human life) we have a philosophical platform to elevate human kind above all else that is created. We also have reason to claim brotherhood and sisterhood with all people because we owe our existence to the same Creator. This in contrast to the notion we owe our existence to naturalistic forces that never intended humans to exist. From that point of view we can draw a much more cruel philosophical view point, that since humans were never intended to exist human life is nothing remotely special, we don't have a right to live or exist or any rights whatsoever least of all rights endowed by a Creator.